Recent comments in /f/science

ambrosius-on-didymus t1_j8i86e0 wrote

Reply to comment by myusernamehere1 in A study found that CBD "exerted anti-cancer activity by reducing epithelial-mesenchymal transition and causing cell cycle arrest." by OregonTripleBeam

Very true in the sense that they are a great way to gain proof of concept for a novel drug early in development. But the vast majority of drugs that work well in vitro with cell cultures don’t work in vivo as a living creature (mouse, dog, human) is vastly more complex than a cell culture plate. Additionally, most of the popular cancer cell lines that are used in labs have been selected to be highly responsive to drugs to give research the greatest chance at success. I worked with CBD in a cancer drug development lab and it worked incredibly at killing cancer cells in vitro, but once you tried in an animal model, the effect size shrank dramatically and vanished more often than not.

1

dcheesi t1_j8i73gq wrote

Reply to comment by meontheinternetxx in High coffee consumption may triple kidney disease risk in some people by LordNPython

Studies generally say yes, though the particulars may vary from study to study. Certainly regular drip coffee helps, and some studies indicate that other types of coffee may also be beneficial.

The caffeine itself seems to be part of it, although other sources such as tea have confounding factors (e.g. tannins) that may limit their benefit. Coffee seems to have the clearest evidence of a consistent benefit.

Decaf coffee, if you're wondering, has less evidence in favor of it. The conventional wisdom from previous studies suggested that it should be less effective; however, at least one recent study reported a similar benefit to regular coffee.

2

hallgod33 t1_j8i5t0t wrote

Reply to comment by I-Way_Vagabond in A study in the US has found, compared to unvaccinated people, protection from the risk of dying from COVID during the six-month omicron wave for folks who had two doses of an mRNA vaccine was 42% for 40- to 59-year-olds; 27% for 60- to 79-year-olds; and 46% for people 80 and older. by Wagamaga

I've got a BSPH, and I'd say that is a huge barrier no one wants to tackle. Medical anthropology is designed to help reduce the communication barrier, but no one in practical medicine wants to listen. Even though we use the same English words, the grammar and sentence structure and etc make medical science a functionally different language.

2

thatissomeBS t1_j8i4l9h wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in A study in the US has found, compared to unvaccinated people, protection from the risk of dying from COVID during the six-month omicron wave for folks who had two doses of an mRNA vaccine was 42% for 40- to 59-year-olds; 27% for 60- to 79-year-olds; and 46% for people 80 and older. by Wagamaga

Well, according to the numbers, 50-75% more protected. So yeah, that's lap belt, shoulder belt, and airbags.

14

SerialStateLineXer t1_j8i3gwk wrote

Reply to comment by Wagamaga in A study in the US has found, compared to unvaccinated people, protection from the risk of dying from COVID during the six-month omicron wave for folks who had two doses of an mRNA vaccine was 42% for 40- to 59-year-olds; 27% for 60- to 79-year-olds; and 46% for people 80 and older. by Wagamaga

You got the title wrong. The numbers you cite in the title are relative mortality risk, not the reduction in risk of mortality. So people age 60-79 were 27% as likely to die (i.e. 73% less likely), not 27% less likely (73% as likely), as implied by your title.

1